show me where I said that

So you don't approve of cops shooting people in the back?

what was he reaching for? Pick from below:
-gun
-knife

Pure conjecture.

So you don't approve of cops shooting people in the back?

show me where I said that

SNIP

I can only speak for myself, but if I found myself in that situation and the cops tell me to stand down, I WILL STAND DOWN.  I am a parent who loves my children and will do anything to keep them safe.  I wonder if that guy was even thinking of how traumatic it looked with his kids watching their dad (actually the word father should be used.  Dad is reserved for those who earned it) scuffle with police with their firearms drawn.  Not to mention the danger.  That cop's adrenaline was off the charts and his weapon was drawn.

That's a key word there in BOLD.  Thinking is someone running on the basis of rational thought.  In this case, any many like it, I think it based on emotion and rational thought is thrown out.

Your imagination is running amok again..... and just in time for another 2 week lock down!

It's going to be a long 2 weeks.   

The only imagination is you thinking that you know everything and having to comment, on every post, in this forum, to prove it.

Because I don't believe suspects being shot in the back, as imminent threats.

Well, that's your opinion on what you believe to be a threat and what you don't.

And I'll just mention here that having a firearm, knife, etc is NOT a minimum standard for what is a threat.  Why people get so caught up with that MSM BS is   

show me where I said that

That would mean arguing based on FACTS.

show me where I said that

Never mind already.

Well, that's your opinion on what you believe to be a threat and what you don't.

And I'll just mention here that having a firearm, knife, etc is NOT a minimum standard for what is a threat.  Why people get so caught up with that MSM BS is 

So I ask you a question, do you think you can justify shooting someone, beyond a reasonable doubt, in the back, in a court of law?

That would mean arguing based on FACTS.

Why do want to escalate?

So I ask you a question, do you think you can justify shooting someone, beyond a reasonable doubt, in the back, in a court of law?

Give me a specific context.  Just because someone's back is facing me doesn't necessarily mean there is no threat. 

Why do want to escalate?

I'm generally poking fun.  Sorry that I triggered your sensitivities. . .

I'm generally poking fun.  Sorry that I triggered your sensitivities. . .

My apologies.   

My sensitives are extra long and get hurt easily.     

Give me a specific context.  Just because someone's back is facing me doesn't necessarily mean there is no threat. 

I agree.

However, since there is so much room, for misinterpretation, of true intentions, that shooting anyone, in the back, is a very risky, act of self-defense.

I agree.

However, since there is so much room, for misinterpretation, of true intentions, that shooting anyone, in the back, is a very risky, act of self-defense.

Yes.  But see, again, that's your opinion.  You weren't there, nor was I.  The point that you weren't there is a big part of your questioning from a safe space at your keyboard, which is the same safe space as I am typing this from.  I'm just saying that you have to consider the WHOLE context.  Yes, the officers' training is likely a big factor, but I really think there's a HUGE misconception of what folks think they would or wouldn't do.  Go back to the many videos of media being put through scenario training and I think 100% of them shot the "aggressor" too soon. 

Yes.  But see, again, that's your opinion.  You weren't there, nor was I.  The point that you weren't there is a big part of your questioning from a safe space at your keyboard, which is the same safe space as I am typing this from.  I'm just saying that you have to consider the WHOLE context.  Yes, the officers' training is likely a big factor, but I really think there's a HUGE misconception of what folks think they would or wouldn't do.  Go back to the many videos of media being put through scenario training and I think 100% of them shot the "aggressor" too soon.

I get your point.

However, in this particular case, a suspect was shot from behind; video evidence makes that a fact.  The question, of whether it was justified, is what is of issue.

If the cops are going to say that they needed to shoot Blake because he was leaving the scene, is that procedural thing they normally do?  Shoot first and ask questions later?

If the cop is going to claim self-defense, video evidence does not confirm, an immediate threat ,of danger, to the officer, especially when it was the shooting officer, who willfully put himself in danger, by moving, into point blank range.  If anything, his fellow officers, with their guns drawn, did not take the same actions or displayed similar intent, as did the shooting cop.

I wouldn't pass because I would not enforce any unconstitutional laws.  Law abiding citizen stopped for a coffee with his firearm in his car.  No problem.

How is a suspect moving away, from the cops, to get back, into his car, a threat to the cops?

....
I want some of whatever you been smoking

Pure conjecture.

They did find a knife on the driver's side floorboard.

They did find a knife on the driver's side floorboard.

Blake told them that he had a knife.

Why did the shooting cop feel the need to approach Blake so closely and put himself, in that situation, in the first place?